phone and 37,000 to cell phones. let me just add a footnote to the statistics that i've just given you. those don't necessarily indicate that the law has been violated in every particular case because, for example, i didn't talk about any restriction for a call to business lines. and so, there may be something going on there, but there may not be. so i say that not to call statistics into question, but i just wanted to highlight for you at those numbers don't necessarily mean there's been 90,607 violations of laws we enforce that we're aware of thus far this year. >> thank you.

>> and we just released her databook i do-not-call complaints for the last fiscal year that ended end of september this year and are complaints were up, just a government office, nearly double for do-not-call complaints. robocall complaints even higher and an even larger percentage than they were the year before, not surprisingly. ..

2.5 billion. there are lots of other companies with lots and lots of calls so that is when we figure out when we are looking at who are we going to go after we look at the claim and we get information from those claims and we try to figure out who will stop the most number of calls. talk about complaint figures, we filed 94 enforcement actions involving do not call violations. some of those include robo-calls and some of those are just specifically do not call that 94 enforcement actions against 271 companies and 212 individuals. those defendants in the case of the independence some of those cases are still ongoing have paid more than $69 million in civil penalties and equitable monetary relief. if you look just a robo-call cases going back to three years

ago when the robo-call rules went into effect late in 2009 the fcc has filed 15 cases specifically dealing with robo-call or is against 42 companies and 24 individuals. although many of those cases are still ongoing and infect many several were filed just recently we have arctic collected more than $5 million with equitable monetary relief and if you keep an eye on that our press releases on our web site there is a lot more to come. one thing we also do because we target the people that are responsible for the most bad acts and for the most calls in many cases we think those people deserve some criminal punishment we don't have criminal authority unfortunately. we referred many of those cases, the worst actors, to criminal authorities for criminal prosecution. for instance just a couple of weeks ago, the defendant in our

transcontinental warranty action spent 15 months in prison for making illegal robo-calls that pitched fraudulent auto warranty services. other defendants in this case is forgiven five years in prison. just last month, we announced as part of our enforcement action, civil action, for mailing refund checks to nearly 5000 consumers across the country who were allegedly defrauded by these calls and some of those checks were him for more than $1000. earlier this year a federal judge sent a defendant from our economic relief civil enforcement action to more than 17 years in prison and ordered her to pay more than $1 million in restitution for making illegal robo-calls to consumers and those calls had names like card services, count services in the types of calls you have heard about today. but because we target those really bad actors in many cases those bad actors deserve jail

time and in many cases they don't. >> i didn't share anything that i should have about what our law enforcement efforts have been. i told you about the complaints that we have had but i didn't share with you what we have done. so just to highlight that for you briefly again, our rules have been in effect since around 1991 to 1992. since that time, we have issued hundreds of citations and let me get back to that in a minute, and we have instituted around 10 different penalty actions that collectively are around $3.5 billion i believe is the figure so just to circle back to the citation for you, our authority is different than what you have heard the ftc describe and as the attorney general

referred to. we do not have the power under the communications act to go directly into federal court and to seek an injunction. the type of enforcement process that we use is a penalty type process that, in the cases of people who aren't carriers or broadcasters, in other words people who don't hold licenses from the fcc are statutorily required as the first item of business to issue a citation to that entity and the point of that requirement is to alert this entity that they not specifically be aware that it's operating in a regulated space that the fcc is involved in. we have to tell them you are doing something that you're not allowed to do and then if they do it again after having been wanted, then we have the power to go ahead and start a penalty

proceeding and the way that works and not to get too bogged down in the enforcement, is that we would issue something called the notice of apparent liability and the stems directly from the statutory enforcement procedures that the fcc has, where we tell the alleged wrongdoer what law they have violated, when we believe they did that and what penalty we are proposing to impose for that violation and give them an opportunity to respond to that. we then need to hear what they have to say in response and move forward with a forfeiture order that would either go ahead and impose the forfeiture that was proposed in the notice or do some reduction if there is some some -- he doing better i suppose you could cancel it. the 10 actions that are referred to our at various stages in the process.

some have been imposed that we have not moved forward to forfeiture order. in some cases we have gone to the forfeiture order and in some cases there has been a consent decree with the alleged wrongdoer to resolve the matter in its entirety. >> thank you. so no shortage of complaints. the fcc is getting thousands and the ftc is getting a couple hundred thousand each month so i think the next question is really summarized wonderfully and i'm getting inundated with cards. thank you. why is rachel still calling? i think that definitely pulls together the next topic of conversation. why is enforcement so challenging and let's start with the ftc. >> sure, i mean you have heard a lot of the reasons already. we talked about how the network

changed so i guess the easiest thing to do might be to walk through the way a typical rachel:might happen. it might start as a only does with, we call it a wee generator and sometimes a qualifier but often it's a wee generator that can be based anywhere in the world or anywhere in the united states and all they need is a computer and an internet connection with an auto dialer company and the auto dialer company then has a connection to carriers and the telephone network or. the auto dialer -- the lead generator is just trying to find people for these products or services for these rachel calls so they are just going to blast out calls. some of these lead generators are calling the phone book and

going sequentially through numbers and looking for bodies a lot like e-mail spam because the costs are so much low for now. the startup costs are lower, almost zero as brett mentioned earlier. you can get dialing in a few hours and you don't need a pbx. you don't need lots of copper line and he don't even need a phone. you just need your computer and internet connection, so they will send out these calls going through an auto dialer which will put them into the telephone network and they will go out all over the country. and a very small percentage of people and up answering them in listening to the message and the message will be like one you may have heard earlier that the chairman received, the rachel call which will save press one for lowering your credit card debt and press two to go on to our current list. and press one, the call then can be routed to somewhere completely differently. it can go to an outsource room that might be in india,

pakistan, california or florida. it might go back to the wee generator or it might go back to the company that is trying to pitch the scam to you. you will speak to a qualifier and they will ask why few questions whether you have $10,000 in credit card debt and they might just hang up on you. they're not going to give you real name. they will use a name like card services or account services and when you answer and you talk to them you don't know anything about them. you another phone number and you think you know their name. you think you know where they are because they might call from the area code even near you but in fact they could be in panama are good they could be in india, they could he anywhere. in some cases with a wee generator they will just hang up on you. they have got your number that your name and they know you are someone that is interested in reducing your credit card debt and they're going to sell that

information to 10, 20, 30 different scammers who will then i'll try to call you and pitch you debt relief services are sometimes you will immediately get transferred somewhere else, somewhere else in the country or somewhere else in the world and they will go in and try and sell you -- tell you you need to pay $500 or $1000 to reduce your interest rates to zero and your credit cards or some sort of other outlandish scheme that isn't true. because those lead generators and those people can be based anywhere and they can spoof your caller i.d., it makes them much more difficult to find. they can also move extremely easily and in fact in many cases those people don't have any connection to you whatsoever because you are not actually going to pay those people. the people you end up paying if you even do are the scammers that are pitching you this card service stuff and those are people that may call you in a completely separate phonecall and you may not even realize

that the two were connected. but the way that we worked back and try to find the bad guys and file are enforcement action is we do a number of different things. usually what we do is we start out with consumer complaints that we get and even though the caller i.d. is usually spoofed and fake in the name they have given his fate,, you can still tease information out of those and you can still bring those complaints together and look for trends. maybe they made a mistake in one particular call and then you can connect all those different complaints together and for instance just a few weeks ago we filed an enforcement action california with a company called nelson gamble who was making robo-calls, making the debt reduction credit card reduction type claims we are talking about today and i know i spoke to consumers that began with the consumer complaints. that is how one of the things that led to that investigation for those complaints. even though the caller i.d.

number, even though the location is probably spoofed, that is how we can help trace them back and then we can look and see, did someone pay money to someone? did you pay $500 for the credit card debt relief? if you did and we can trace that money back and we can find who you paid and then if we bring enforcement action and go in and shut down that company the company that you paid, then we can look through their documents and see who was doing the lead generation for them? who was doing the robo calling for them? who was the auto dialer involved in the call so we can go after everyone in the chain at that point. but it is lengthy and it takes time to build these cases and find information to trace the money back and then go and get a court order to shut down the company and get the records and then end up finding who made the initial robo-call that was the lead generation is sparked the

whole thing. we can also trace the calls back to the network as they talk about this morning. it would be very difficult, talking about routing calls to multiple different carriers all around the country. takes time to go back to each one and say okay where did this call come from and we have to go back to the next and say where did this call come from? we can locate the bad guys in many cases but it's a timely, difficult process. we also use informants, and a former employees. not surprisingly many of these bad guys don't treat their employees well. they don't pay well. they don't get vacations and they end up with them mad employees. i know in the nelson gamble case we used information that we obtained from former employees who were unhappy with their company partly because they knew the bad that they were doing and those former employees are an

extremely valuable source of information. when we trace back these calls and find the bad guys ultimately that are involved in these calls are. it takes time. we can find them and what we do we want to target the ones that are responsible for the most number of calls, and when we do we try to shut them down. we need court orders to keep them from making those calls any more. we have got a lot of enforcement actions that i talked about already. a law has just been filed in the last few months and there's a lot more in the works and keep tuned to ftc.gov for more information as it comes forward because i can assure you more is coming. >> thank you, will. without giving away any state secrets how do you find a bad bad guys? >> we have been very successful over the years up until this

past, i think the wave of the oipt robo-calls and cloud base that we are finding similar frustrations with spoofed numbers and you know even where the numbers are valid, people aren't there. so we have gone through the same process was we used to but i will say that it's getting harder with the new technology to be as successful as we have been. some of the same things that will talked about we are looking at. we are trying a couple of cases where the purchasers of the leads from the lead generators are claiming that they did not cause the calls to be made so we are going to be changing our statute and proposing legislative changes that would allow us to get past that defense and require purchasers to verify that the leads were legally generated and not done through illegal robo-calls.

we are also following up on another idea where similar to will's suggestion, but the boiler rooms don't treat people very well. we are going to initiate legislation that would allow anyone out there that might be working in a boiler room to call and if it's really just about make the money they can probably make more money working with the anti--- indiana attorney general's office then they could from being paid by the robo caller. we have been successful working with some of our state partners in being a little more creative, where even, there is one example i think down in florida where we thought we would run into a dead end, but some of those people cleaning up after the boiler room saw all of the scripts from the boiler room and called a few people in the next thing we knew we had a life case. so we are still being very

aggressive and although we get more frustration with the ability to match things and look forward to a little more help on the technological side to fight the new technologies that we are battling. >> i don't think i have a lot to add to what has already been said. obviously there are challenges in identifying who these folks are. you would hope that you could use the numbers that are showing up on somebody's caller i.d. to help you out in that regard and i think we have heard over and over this morning that is often not a good source of information. you can try to work backwards from taking, not the originating number but the terminating number, and trying to trace that to get to the point of origin in that manner but is it you have also heard from a number of different people today, that can be challenging, and

time-consuming. folks that we work with, carriers that we talked to, often are very responsive and helpful in a relatively short period of time such as you know a day or two, but that still can be a long process when you're talking about needing to get in touch with people in several different carriers who have been involved in the transmission of the call along the way and something like handing talked about this morning that would be great is to get better intelligence about the true call if you will all along the way and to have a very expedited process vehicle available when you get the information very quickly. i also wanted to mention that, i think it's a challenge if you will that we have at the ftc --

fcc that is not shared by the ftc and the attorney general is, you heard me talk about the binding process which is the typical process that we use. obviously a there is a lot in many places outlined the type of behavior we have been talking about this morning. but the worst actors out there don't pay any attention to those laws. and they may not pay any tension to a piece of paper from the fcc when we find them. it says you are breaking the law and we are proposing a find against you and here is how much the fine is going to be so we need to be looking at the other enforcement tools that are available to us in the statute and although they do not as i said need to go directly into federal court, and an injunction

we do have our own administrative adjunctive authority that would have to be enforced in court and there is a provision in the communications act for the department of justice can get involved to seek injunctions to stop the violation of the law that we enforce. just to circle back to the penalty, something i wanted to just follow on to that i think brad has mentioned earlier this morning. he was referring to penalties off $500 in the tcp a. and $1500. those are the penalties that are available for i believe a private right of action by individuals in the statute that a consumer himself or herself can bring an action to enjoy these types of practices or get damages as well.

the fcc's fining authority is bigger than mentioned. we actually can impose $16,000 per violation so that means per call. that is a violation, could impose a 16,000-dollar fine and we in fact have done that in our most recent action and sort of the more -- the one that we would impose when there a lot of aggravating factors involved that so i guess the point i'm trying to make is we are using the authority that we have presently that we have in terms of finding people but i think we need to be retooling and looking at the other tools that we have to address the problem as well. >> along those lines as well as under the sales world we can go when, go into federal court and get orders to shut down businesses. as is imagined though sometimes it takes a while so we are

looking at ways to get into court faster so we can get to to adjudge almost immediately and say we need to get an order to get these calls stopped and have the stop going through the network. along those lines also i can announce today that we have set up a honeypot with a significant number of phone numbers from numbers all over the country to that come into our honeypot and the calls get answered and we record messages and take the information on the calls that are coming into our honeypot so that we can find out much faster who is actually making these calls and actually have the recording in house so we have the evidence right there that will hopefully help us find these guys faster. >> thank you. turning to some of the questions. there is no shortage of them and there is no way with a 20 minutes we have i can get through them all. we will do the best we can. i will go through some and

consolidate. let me start with the freshman. is it better for the consumer to stay on the line and engage in conversation with as much information as possible rather than hang up? general? >> no. for years, we have told people that and i think there may still be some benefit with a live caller with the robo-calls we are desperately trying to get the new word out that the longer you stay on, the worse it is for you. so i do think that since the spike in our complaint are robo-call based we need to get that word across very quickly that it's more a question of play the game of how quickly you can hang up. >> i think that's right and if they give you information it's going to be fake information in and the names are going to be fake. you are not going to get anything out of it and usually the props that they will be able to use. also if you press one or two, whether it's wanting to talk to

someone or to cut suits be put on the do not call list because these calls are coming from generators they are very happy to have you press either number because they are not going to put you in the do not call list. they have already broken the law by calling you as a sales-based robo-call. they certainly don't have their internal do not call list that they're going to now on her. what they do is put you on more lead lists for people who are at home but have working phone numbers that answered the phone or listen to the message and press the number so perversely you will end up getting even more called that way. that may be different at your school district calling you and your doctor or something like that but for a sales and-based robo-call we tell consumers it's a mistake to press one or two. you should just hang up on them. >> i can tell you from -- personal experience that is not particularly helpful from years ago before i got involved in any

of the robo-calls that we are talking about today. i received a number of phonecalls, dutifully pressed one and now please don't call me anymore. which improve nothing of course so i decided to press two to talk to someone about the product they were offering and they didn't -- that didn't help. in fact when you start trying to get information that might be useful to law enforcement the phone is put down so people are not adjusted in talking to you anymore about that. >> i have to be honest with you. i love these debates. these things are great. i think it's interesting that the president still doesn't have an agenda for his second term. don't you think that it's time for him to finally put together a vision of what he would do in the next four years if he were elected? he has got to come with that over the weekend because there is only one debate left on

monday. >> lets recap let's recap what we learned last night. the tax plan does not add up. the jobs plan does not create jobs. his deficit reduction plan adds to the deficit. so you know everybody here is heard the new deal, you have heard of the better deal. thew effort of the square deal. mitt romney is trying to sell you a sketchy deal. we are not buying it. >> it starts as an economic argument. argument.

manages having a hard time adapting to the economy and women are testing more easily. i can't tell you why. just to stay this. back then its education and credentials. the economy is fast-changing and women seem to be getting those skills and credentials at a much faster rate than men are. and they seem to be more nimble and that kind of filters down into our society or goes on the book i talk about how to change that changes marriages and fatherhood and what man can again do in families and how young people have and make decisions and so you really start to see it having an influence in our culture. >> democratic state senator

kyrsten sinema and republican vernon parker. our live coverage from phoenix is courtesy of kate aet tv. the ninth district was added in their son after the 10 census and it includes tempe and part of the phoenix scottsdale mesa and chandler. ♪ >> good evening and welcome to the special 2012 edition of arizona horizons. tonight is a debate with candidates running to represent arizona's ninth impression of district in the u.s. house of representatives. this is not a formal exercise. it's an open exchange of ideas and opportunities for give-and-take between candidates

for the states most important offices. as such interjections at a time in the vendor options are allowed provided that those involved get a chance to respond and we will do our best to see that happens. from the ninth congressional district located in maricopa county includes tempe, parts of phoenix, chandler, mesa and third as valid. three candidates are in the race to represent. democrat kyrsten sinema, republican vernon parker a current and former mayor of paradise valley and libertarian, a retired microbiologist who is making a fifth run for congress. each candidate will have the opportunity for a one minute opening statement and beecher numbers to see who goes first and out of those two -- >> i differ from the other two candidates because i'm not here to rule over you but to advocate for personal freedom. i live by a single principle, that it is wrong to initiate force or fraud on others.

and i expect everyone else to live in that same standard. that is what the founding fathers are trying to give us, a system that maximizes personal liberty and minimizes the cost to optimize our life by providing the freedom to keep and enjoy the fruits of our labors and not to let a bunch of thugscome along and steal from those labors by ruling confiscations so tonight is really about the only two choices you have. who rules over you and choosing not to participate in that process. >> moderator: thank you very much. now we turn to kyrsten sinema. sinema: good evening and thanks for having us here this evening. i believe congress is no longer serving we the people. all across this great country

people are struggling to get jobs and keep jobs to take every families and we have a congress more interested in political bickering and taking partisan ideology swipes at each other solving the problems. i believe that we can do better. across the state folks who don't have jobs are trying hard to get them and make it to the middle-class. folks who have jobs are struggling to keep them and take care of the kids and prepare for their kids future and we need folks who are willing to work across the aisle to solve problems. i have a record of doing just that. in the seven years i served in arizona state legislature i built a the reputation of working across the aisle with folks on both edges of the political sense spectrum to solve problems folks like barry goldwater providing a great opportunity for us to fill those roles and carry on the great tradition in arizona. >> yankee very much in her final opening statement is from vernon

parker. parker: our country is going through some very difficult times. we have out-of-control spending. we have unacceptable unemployment. when i served as mayor i had to make some very difficult decisions to raise taxes or to cut spending. i worked with republicans, democrats and independents and we cut our spending by 30%. our town was better off for it. if you send me to congress i promise you that i will work across the aisle to work with republicans and democrats to make sure that we get america back to work, that we get the middle-class back to work and we have a health care system that is second to none and an education system that is second to none and that we restore the $716 billion it has been rated from medicare. i promise to work and put the american people first and do not put republicans or democrats in front of the american people. >> moderator: thank you very

much. we will start with you. how best can we create jobs in america and in arizona? sinema: i put out its a 12-point to a plan that talks about specific ways that congress can help create a better job economy throughout the country and we don't have time to talk about those points but i will mention a few. right now companies get tax rewards for shipping jobs overseas which leaves americans out of jobs and shortchange. i want to switch the tax code around so we provide taxes to businesses that hire folks in america. number two i want to support businesses and give them tax credits to hire veterans who have served their country and when they come home have great skills that we can put to use here in the united states and a third example the research and development tax credit. i helped shepherd through a credit that brings high-tech high-wage jobs to arizona. when each do that federally.

those jobs right here to america. >> moderator: verna and how best to stick during the just arizona and america? parker: the first thing we should do is we should free the current tax rate. if we do that we will put $4000 in the pockets of middle-class americans. the second thing, we must become more competitive on the global scene. we can no longer have the highest corporate income tax in the world. right now we are in the high 30s and if we lower our corporate income tax to 22% we will create 2 million jobs here in america and also if we reinvest and make sure that the research and development tax credits extended by 25% another 2000 jobs. the next point is that i fully support building i 11 from las vegas to phoenix because that

will create jobs and i would also advocate that we keep the air force base for that provides 17,500 jobs to this economy with $2.2 billion which ms. sinema propose we shut. sinema: not accurate on something i find pretty offensive. my grandpa is an army veteran and served in world war ii and got a purple heart. my dad served in vietnam and i have a big mother who served in the marines and the little brother who is currently serving in the united states navy. so lots of guys in my family are military. have a strong record in supporting veterans and in fact i am the only candidate sitting at the table this evening was a wreck or did. ted over the course of seven years in the state legislature voted once but -- not once but a times to protect and preserve the air force base. unfortunately this is just another piece of legislation.

>> moderator: did did you advocate to close the air force base? sinema: in 2002 when i was running as an independent -- when i was younger, i had.based on information i've been told that i will tell you what my brothers taught me the most important thing we can do is to keep those jobs open and that is why i pass legislation to protect military families and veterans throughout the state. >> moderator: creating jobs in arizona in the country. gammill: seriously this is how you increase the debt we are in is keeping an air force base x. come on now, jobs. how do you get jobs in the state? jobs are created when businesses have surplus money and needs. you almost always have needs and how do they get surplus money? with the federal government ripping them off left and right with high taxes, you have got to basically go in there and got that. my personal opinion is we

eliminate federal taxes and corporate taxes at the federal level and see how good the skills of one of these two are now. before we jump on that. the other thing i would like to jump on is we need to get rid of all the regulations and the mandates of the government puts on businesses that crushes the life out of them. if you do that and you have surplus money they start to hire people. >> moderator: verna and the idea of economics some would argue that why would we return to that particular ideology and philosophy? some see that as one of the reasons we have the great recession in the first place. parker: we must be very competitive on the global site so once again we cannot have the highest corporate income tax in the world. we must reduce our corporate income tax because our number one export right now, we are exporting jobs to china and exporting jobs to india and i firmly believe that in order for us to be more competitive that

we must take a look at our current tax structure. >> moderator: would you think about the idea that cutting taxes is the best way to stimulate the economy and the idea that the tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves? sinema: some tax cuts make a lot of sense. i support the bush tax cuts continuing for middle-class family because right now those families are struggling to put food on the table, gas in the tank and prepare the kids for the future but vernon and i have a different idea on how to help middle-class families. he suggests the number one ways to cut corporate taxes and i think the number one way to do it is support middle-class families. i believe we should stop the bush tax cuts for the richest 2% in our country. ted if we continue those tax cuts for the richest 2% it will add $1 trillion to our country's deficit over the next 10 years and i don't think we can leave that for kids and grandkids. that is not the legacy we want to create for them.

parker: let me respond. ms. sinema has proposed in the past that we raise taxes on middle-class who make $75,000 or more and has proposed that we tax services such as barbershops, hairdressers and she is proposed that we tax plastic bags 25 cents per bag. that will put an enormous burden on middle-class families. when people talk about let's not cut taxes. when you cut taxes on people who are making $200,000 or 250,000 those are small business owners. those are s corp and they are paying individual rates and hiring americans so the notion that someone who makes $200,000 or $250,000, that they are rich and wealthy and they should not receive tax breaks that is unimaginable. sinema: to clarify my record in

the seven years that i served in the legislature never once voted for a tax increase on middle-class families so i think the record is clear there. again for and has highlighted a difference between us. he wants to give tax breaks to the wealthiest americans i think we need to give those breaks to middle-class families and folks struggling to make it to the middle-class. when i was a kid my dad lost his job and we ended up homeless for a few years. we worked hard to make about the milk is but it hadn't been for programs like the low-income tax credit that helped folks like me with pell grants to get back on her feet we would not have made it. parker: the reason ms. sinema did not raise taxes is because the legislature was and is controlled by republicans so she never had the opportunity but she has advocated tax increases so that is unfair to say that she didn't vote for tax increases because she never had the opportunity to. sinema: ted i do believe -- they should pay their fair share and i think us americans agree.

>> moderator: respond to that because we have heard that in debates all around the country. the idea of 250,000 plus year folks need to pay more of their share and should pay more of their share. valid? parker: you must understand this. those are individuals, small business owners who have s corp's and llc's and pay in individual ways. if they are going to be taxed at that rate they won't have the resources to reinvest into our community. they would have the resources to create more jobs so it is unfair to tax those individuals who are supplying 90% of the jobs to this country. sinema: use doubling down on triple -- trickle-down economics which just doesn't work. i'm worried about nurses and teachers and he is worried about millionaires and billionaires. parker: many can be considered to be a millionaire, that is totally incorrect.

gammill: one i never got a job from a -- person so don't take away their money and expect the rich people's money and expect jobs to go up. secondly, no corp. or business in this country pays any tax. all those taxes is get you out there, we are sticking it to the richer corporations but guess what? that gets passed onto the products of the company and manufactures so it effectively you are basically taxing yourself and you sit there and cheer the businessmen getting hammered. >> moderator: we moved to health care. would you have voted for the affordable care act? sinema: as many folks in arizona now i worked hard to shape they'll bought to make it fit arizona. in the first to say this law is not perfect or go there are a lot of stinkers from the legislation but they're important parts of the law that have to be protected. protections for kids with preexisting conditions like

autism or down syndrome protection for folks diagnosed with diseases like breast cancer so they aren't kicked off their insurance and. what we need is not a repeal. first of all that is not very practical and not likely to happen but what we do need is bipartisan action to come together and fix some of the parts of the law that don't work well for america's small businesses and families. >> moderator: how would you have voted for the affordable care act? parker: this topic is very personal for me. my wife had heard stayed -- third stage press conference and we lost her insurance because she could not afford it. she recovered and because we are the best doctors in the world and the best health care system in the world but it's not affordable. the affordable care act of several things that i believe went too far. for example it's too expensive. it will cost us $2.6 billion but the one provision that i think is reprehensible is that it robs

medicare of $716 billion when i get to congress i will fight to make sure those cuts are restored and third this is a -- we are going to have your correct in washington d.c. destroying the doctor patient relationship telling us when we can see doctors and how we can see them and forth, i'm sorry but fourth it will destroy small business because never before in american history have we said if you hire more than 50 people and they work more than 39 hours per week and you then you will be penalized. >> moderator: too intrusive or damaging to small business? sinema: a wholesale repeal of the law is neither practical nor realistic. we need to do is work together to create for ability for midsize businesses. businesses between 50 and 200 employees. there's one thing i do want to point out that i was concerned about what mr. parker said. it has been debunked as a lie

from the beginning and that is the massive cuts to medicare. the truth is the affordable care act cuts out waste fraud and abuse and i would think we would all agree we want to get rid of that in our system. the concerning thing is mr. parker support for the romney biden -- romney budget. he recently said he supports their approach to entitlements. that budget would boucher rice medicare and cost seniors $6400 more each year. my can afford that kind of an increase. parker: i'm on record i have never said i support the romney ryan budget. i've never said that. let's get back to this health care. i agree with certain aspects. one that we should be old to purchase insurance for children up to the age of 26 and god knows we need now because these kids do not have jobs and two we must address preexisting conditions. in order to drive down those costs we must be able to purchase insurance across state lines but this is a very

important point. doctors practice defensive medicine. when my wife who had third stage breast cancer we had to pay for these tests so we told the doctor, the iraq said you need this test in this test and i said i have to pay for this. he said he don't need this one and this one. why did you prescribe what? he said because i'm afraid there will be sued and that is not medicine. >> moderator: do you want to get in on this? gammill: is there any greater example for why the constitution and the federal government are completely at odds with one another? the constitution is supposed to limit the federal government. there's nothing there is nothing in the constitution about health care or allowing congress to pass health care laws but they do all over the place in mandate so i would have voted against it and i think this shows more of the difference between myself and the other two candidates than any other issue because i completely oppose the federal

government having any say in any aspect of people's medicine especially the mandate. >> moderator: social security should be privatized and contributions going to stocks, medicaid should be turned over to states? should there be a radical re-look at these programs? sinema: that is a great question. this is another area where fern and i differ. earlier he told the tea party audience he was interested in the romney ryan budget as it relates to entitlements. parker: that is not true. sinema: there are three areas where that matters and that is medicaid block payments. block payments would cause us to lose more than half the funding we get to pay for health care in arizona. that hurt arizona's kids and it also means those tax dollars are going to other states. that makes no sense. we should get those dollars back in terms of social security and medicare these are personal issues to me. my grandmother was widowed in their early 20s in tucson. she raised three kids on her own

working minimum-wage at first cafeteria and self tucson and when she retired all she had was of social security and medicaid. republicans in congress are proposing to privatize social security or boucher rice medicare to end medicare as we know it and those are dangerous programs, dangerous ideas. >> moderator: dangerous ideas for these programs? parker: absolutely. i never would privatize social security and i'm on record for continually saying that we must uphold our commitment to our citizens. we must preserve medicare and we must preserve social security. the system is broken and so we are going to have to do something to fix the system. when i get to congress i will sit down with republicans than with democrats to make sure that in the future we resolved the issues surrounding social security and medicare. >> moderator: what about returning medicaid to the

states? parker: i've no problem with that. >> moderator: you think that's a good idea? sinema: this is a real area of difference between us because of medicaid were returned to the status of block grant we would lose over 50% of the funds we currently get and this means low income workers people with disabilities and seniors, seniors make up 65% of the folks who benefit in the state so making those cuts would mean my wouldn't get caring kids with disabilities would not good care. >> moderator: some would argue that the governor has made the argument that we can't afford what's going on now. sinema: the truth is we can't afford to not do it because of we don't ensure that folks have access to affordable health care they show up for health care anyway an emergency room and you and i both know cost 12 times as much to see a doctor in the emergency room then in his or her office. doesn't benefit arizona to cut this program. >> moderator: the last word on

this. parker: miss sinema will continually through the entire night believe that the government should be under control and i believe decision should be made at the state level. a lot of decision should be made the state level. we don't need washington d.c. telling us how to do business in in the state of verizon. >> moderator: social security and returning medicaid to the states? gammill: i'm appalled you were tauscher grandmother out mistreats simply because she doesn't have health insurance. that is what i just heard you say. i would think you would come running and help her out but instead i guess you would rather put a gun to every american in the country and fleece them of their hard-earned wages. >> moderator: people who simply don't have the means to take care of and? gammill: up until the 1950's, we had charities etc. that would take care of such people. church groups etc. and the federal government has basically come in and run them out of the business of doing that and taken

over on its own. anyway as you have arctic's social security medic kate and medicare zero across-the-board. matt is man-made climate change real? do you believe in that? parker: i don't believe in al gore invented the internet either. man-made climate change we must be good stewards of our environment and we must make sure that we protect our environment. >> moderator: is man-made climate change real? sinema: there is overwhelming evidence that --'s made a difference and that is why support plans to create solar energy and improve alternative energy here in arizona. is part of my jobs plan. it's not only important to help us address climate change but also from a national security perspective. the faster we can become dependent on renewable sources in arizona like solar energy the less likely we will continue to

depend on the volatile arcus of the middle east. parker: here's the problem that we have right now. we have the largest oil reserve in the world and if we tapped into that reserve believe me our economy would take off. so we have to make sure that as someone said that our president is not bow down to a saudi king. we must realize those reserves. i'm in favor of nuke leer and i'm in favor of clean coal and solar so whatever it is that gets us away and gets us the independence we need his pursue it. >> moderator: quickly the idea, drill more within america? sinema: i do believe it's important to keep all of her options of the table but the truth is we can make more clean energy using solar technology at a cheaper rate than in the past

without endangering some of our greatest wildlife resources and natural resources. >> moderator: we are just getting going here. each candidate will give the one minute closing statement and go in reverse order of the opening statements, we start with brennan clark -- vernon parker. parker: thank you. this is a lot of fun. i'm asking you to support me and send me to congress. we must keep our economy going. we must put the middle class back to work and we must protect our seniors, protect medicare, protect social security and they must have education system that is second to none and you have my commitment that i will work with republicans and democrats because right now we have a congress that gets nothing done because they are more concerned about pinning the tail on the donkey you're trying to lasso the elephant and i can tell you right now the american people have been lost. i will work hard to make sure

that we keep the prosperity of this country and that we work to ensure for future generations that they have the future. i will work for you. >> moderator: thank you very much. the next closing statement is from kyrsten sinema. sinema: as i mentioned at the beginning of my debate i'm running for congress because i think we believe that her. as i mentioned earlier my family faced tough times when i was a kid and when my dad lost his job lost everything. as i was homeless as a kid for two years thanks to this great country and the opportunities afforded to us in a good public education system i was able to get back on my feet and make it to the middle-class. i want that same opportunity for every kid in every family in this country. i'm running for congress because i believe we can keep those doors of opportunity open. when you combine hard work and assistance to help each other make it through, we can create a country that we are all proud of

every single day. back in the days arizona was known for his pragmatic common sense solutions and we can be don't do that again. if we are going to cross the aisle to solve problems and i promise to do the same thing for you if you send me to washington d.c.. thanks so much. >> moderator: think you very much in a final closing statement is from powell camel. gammill: another opportunity to vote for a whole bunch of offices where one candidate is obviously going to win and therefore your vote doesn't count or where an r or d are both unacceptable where once again you get to choose between the lesser of two evils or choose an evil that is still evil. the only alternative is to choose not to participate in what is a voluntary process. don't vote. you have better things to do then reaffirmed the process for a bunch of thugs are anointed to divvy up a 6040 split. the washington party does not need your choice because either

candidates acceptable to them. what they need is your participation and consent. deny them both by finding better things to do this election. >> moderator: thank you very much and thank you for joining us tonight on the special edition of arizona horizon. i am ted simons and that is it for now. have a great evening. >> i've made mistakes in my personal finances. i'm not perfect that i made those mistakes and i fixed them. the fact is that everybody has looked into these allegations that linda mcmahon has made an ace campaign has said it's completely false. from the danbury news-times every independent financial expert and what makes a lot of these attack ads that we have seen from linda met van especially troubling is the fact

that during the exact same time, linda mcmahon still had not paid back the $1 million that she owed her creditors from bankruptcy 36 years ago. >> congressman murphy i agree that we need to talk about the issues in the state and you know an occasional financial slip is not what we are talking about here. you absolutely need to be honest with the people of connecticut. you need to be honest about your special interest loan. you need to be honest about your -- in washington. those are issues that are important to the folks of connecticut because they want to know, can they trust the congressman that they are seeing or this senator that they are sending to washington to represent them and work and fight for them. i have had a career of creating jobs that contributed to the economy and connecticut. ..

foreign policy with matthew lee of the associated press.

and guy tailor with the washington "times". questioning the relevance the electial college. former wyoming senator will join us by phone to defend the college. and we'll look at trends and wages and benefits from the bureau of labor statistics and christopher a policy analyst with bloomberg government. washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [applause] now secretary of state hillary clinton on energy and foreign policy at georgetown university. she spoke and the u.s. roll in sanctions on iran's oil industry and efforts to increase domestic and international oil production. it's a little less than an hour. [applause]

>> i don't think i ever hear more noise in this room. length of[laughter] than right now. good morning and now. it's my great privilege to honor to welcome back to the hill top secretary of state hillary clinton. we have very proud to think of her as a hoya by marriage. [laughter] i'd also like to welcome ambassador carlos. the state department special envoy. and as always, i'd like to welcome the students, faculty and staff with us in the audience today in case you didn't hear them. [laughter] secretary clinton has come to em embody the georgetown spirit of public service inspect the nearly forty years as the public servant, first lady, senator, and now the nation's chief

diplomat. as many of you know in the last role secretary clinton has traveled making her the most traveled secretary of state in history. i think i speak for all of us when i say it's a pleasure to welcome her back to george town. since taking office, she has tackled some of the most pressing issues facing our country including the future of energy diplomacy. at the conclusion of the remarks today on the topic, secretary clinton will take questions from the audience. now please join me in welcoming the 67th secretary of state of the united states, the honorable hillary clinton. [applause] [cheering and applause] [cheering and applause]

thank you. [cheering and applause] thank you. [cheering and applause] well, it is wonderful to be back here at georgetown, and in one of the most beautiful venues, not only in washington but anywhere to have this chance to talk with you about an issue that will definitely shape your futures, and to shire -- share with you some thoughts about what that actually means. as dean lancaster said, i am a hoya by marriage. i am so proud to be that, and so grateful for the extraordinary contribution that the school of foreign service makes to the state department. we are enriched every single day, dean lancaster, by the work

and scholarship that goes on here at the great university. i -- came here because it's not only that young people have a great stake in our policies at home and abroad about energy, but because we all have to work together to find answers to some of the challenges that it poses. energy cuts across the entirety of u.s. foreign policy. it's a -- matter of national security and global stability. it's at the heart of the global economy. it's also ab issue of democracy and human rights, and it's been a top concern of mine for years but certainly the last four years as secretary of state and it is sure to be the same for the next secretary. so here today i want to talk about the vast changes taking place regarding energy worldwide

and what they will mean for us. america's objective for our energy security and our progress in other places is critical. and the steps that we are taking to try to achieve those objectives are ones that i want briefly to outline to you. but let me start with the basics. energy matters to america's foreign policy for three fundamental reasons. first, it rests at the core of geopolitics. because fundmently energy is an issue of wealth and power, which means it can be both a source of conflict and cooperation. united states has an interest in resolving disputes over energy, keeping energy supplies and markets stable through all manner of global crisis, ensuring that sun -- countries adopt use their energy resources

or promise similarity to shipping roots to force others to bend to their will or forgive their bad behavior. above all, making sure that the american peoples' access to energy is secure, reliable, affordable, and sustainable. second, energy is essential to how we will power our economy and manage our environment in the 21st century. we, therefore, have an interest in promoting new technologies and sources of energy especially including renewables to reduce pollution, do diversify the global energy supply, to create jobs, and to address the very real threat of climate change. and third, energy is key to economic development and political stability. and we have an interest in helping the 1.3 billion people

worldwide who don't have access to energy. we believe the more they can ex-- access power the better the chances of starting businesses, educating their children, increasing their incomes, joining the global economy. all of which is good for them and good for us. and because corruption is often a factor in energy poverty as well as political instability, we have an interest in supporting leaders who invest their nation's energy wealth back in to their economies instead of hording it for themselves. so these are the issues that i want to talk with you about today. but before i do, i will quickly add that many of you especially students of history note these challenges are not new. countries have been fighting over resources for centuries.

human kind has always been on the hunt for new and better sources of energy. and yet, this is a moment of profound change and one that raises complex questions about the direction we are heading. right now, for example, in a dramatic reversal developing countries are consuming more of the world's energy than developed countries. china and india's needs are growing rapidly along with the economy. demand is also rising across central asia and south america too, there's been a surge in the global supply of natural gas creating new opportunity for gas produces and lessons the world's dependence on oil. and technology has developed to the point where we can drill for oil and gas in places like the arctic and the south china sea. opening up new opportunities but

also raising questions about our environment and cat -- cat losing sources of energy. who will benefit from the changes? where will we get the energy to meet the world's growing needs? how can we make sure that the institutions that kept global energy markets well supplied in 209th century like the international energy agency which the united states helped to create after the oil crisis in the 1970s continue to be relevant and effective in the 21st century. there are changes here at home that affect the international energy outlook. many americans don't yet realize the gain that's united states has made. our use of renewable wind and solar power has doubled in the past four years. our oil and natural gas production is surging, new auto

standards will double how far we drive on a gallon of gas, and for the first time, we have introduced fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks, vans and buses all of which will cut costs. that means we are less reliant on im-- imported energy which strengthens our global, political, and economic standing, and the world's energy marketplace. now we all know that energy sparks a great deal of debate in our country. but from my advantage point, as a secretary of state, outside of the domestic debate, the important thing to keep in mind is our country is not and cannot be an island when it comes to energy markets. oil markets are global and natural gas markets are moving in that direction. many power grids span national

boundaries, even when americans are using oil produced entirely within the united states, the price of that oil is largely determined by the global marketplace. so protecting our own energy security calls for us to make progress at home and abroad. and that requires american leadership. one year ago this week after the major strategic review of our nation's diplomacy and development efforts, the state department opened a new bureau, it's called the bureau of energy resources and it's lead as dean lancaster said by my special envoy and accord international energy affairs who is here today. the bureau charged with leading the state's department diplomatic efforts on energy. in the coming weeks i will be

sending policy guidance to every u.s. embassy worldwide instructing them to elevate their reporting on energy issues and pursue more outreach to private sector energy partners. now make no mistake, in the past, the state department obviously conducted energy related diplomacy, sometimes a great deal of it when specific crises arose. we did not have a team of experts dedicated full-time to thinking creatively about how we can solve challenges and seize opportunities and now we do. that in of itself, is a signal of broader commitment by the united states to lead in shaping the global energy future. and, by the way, dean lancaster, six members of the state department's energy team are graduates of georgetown university, and they're here with me today as well. so thank you georgetown!

[applause] [applause] it's a shameless pitch for the foreign service and the state department. we are working in partnership with the department of energy which helps to shape domestic energy policy and works closely with energy ministries around the world. the energy department's national labs are at the cutting edge of innovation, it has a great deal of technical expertise which brings to bear globally. it's work at home abroad is critical because the stronger or domestic energy policy and the more we advance science and deliver technical certainly -- let me speak just briefly about the three pillars of our global

energy strategy. regarding the -- we are focused on energy diplomacy. some of our energy diplomacy is related to issues in the headlines. you may have read about heated dispiewts over territorial claims in the south china sea. why do you think that's happening? there are potentially significant quantity seis and oil on gas resources right next to countries with fast growing energy needs. we are supporting efforts by parties themselves to adopt a clear code of conduct to manage those potential resources without conflict. now some of our energy diplomacy is focused on remote areas like the arctic, a frontier of unexplored oil and gas depos its and a potential environmental

catastrophe. the melting icecaps are opening new drills tuptds as well as new maritime roots. it's critical that we now act to set rules of the road to avoid conflict over the resources and protect the arctic's fragile echo system. we're working to strengthen the arctic counsel, which includes all eight arctic nations including the united states so it can promote effective operation. last summer i went to above the arctic circumstance circle of norway where the new secretary of counsel will be based in order to discuss the issues, which four years ago didn't have much currency, today are being seen as increasing important. another focus of our energy diplomacy is helping to promote competition, and prevent min

openly. consider what's been happening in open. for decades many european nations received much of their natural gas via pipeline from one country, russia. few other sources are available. that has changed in part because of the increase production here in the united states, there's a lot more natural gas in the global market looking for a home. plus there's natural gas in in central asia. they'd like to sell it and europe would like to buy it. but first they need to build pipelines. and that's the goal of a project called the southern corridor which would stretch across the european continent. the united states has been an active partner to all those participants to help move this project to fruition. why have we done this? we want to see countries grow and have stronger economies but

also because energy monopoly create risk. anywhere in the world when one nation is overly depend on the other for the energy. that can jeopardize the political and democratic indeans. it can make a country vulnerable to thought and coherbs. and that's why nato has identified energy security as a key security issue of our time. it's also why we created the u.s.-european union energy counsel to deepen our cooperation on strategic energy issues. it's not just a matter of economic competition, as important as that is. it's a matter of national and international security. security is also at the heart of perhaps the most important energy diplomacy we have conducted in the obama administration. i'm sure you know that the

united states and the european union and other like-minded countries as well as the united nations have imposed sanctions on iran as part of our dual track diplomatic effort to persuade or compel iran to top -- stop the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. you may also know a major target of the sanctions is iran's oil industry. what you may know not because it doesn't make headlines is how much pain staking diplomacy went in to making these sanctions first adopted and then effective. first we needed to convince consumers of iranian oil to stop or significantly reduce their purchases. at the time when demand for energy is high, many countries understandably were worried that reducing their purchases would put them in a very difficult

position. so at the same time, we reached out to other major oil producers to encourage them to increase production so countries would be able to find alternative sources of oil. that was further help by the fact that here in the united states we increased oil production by nearly 700,000 barrels a day. and we engaged countries on the benefits of diversifying their energy supply as a national security matter. the approach has worked. the e.u. put an oil embargo in place in july. we have certified that every single one of iran's oil importers have significantly cut or completely ended their purchases of iranian oil. we have been able to put unprecedented economic pressure on iran while minimizing the burden on the rest of the world. now this strategy influenced our

engagement in other places too. for example, suzanne dan and south sudan where it mattered to both of them and to us. both countries economy's depend on oil. now most of the oil lies in the new country of south sudan. but in order to export that oil, south sudan needs pipelines and ports, which sudan controls. the two countries were fighting over how much money south sudan would pay to sudan to use that infrastructure. they were so far apart, a comprise seemed impossible. so the united states stepped up our engagement in support of the african union and the united nations to avoid a return to war between the two countries to help boost their economies and to restart oil production at the critical moment for the world's

oil supply. this past august, i flew to the capital of south sudan to urge the parties to recognize that a percentage of something is better than a percentage of nothing. and a month later, they signed a cooperation agreement and it was ratified by the two parliaments this week. now the situation is still fragile. and there are many other difficulties they have to work out between themselves. but this was a step forward and i want to commend both sides for their leadership and courage. we have also worked intense belie to support iraq's energy sector. in 2010 iraq produced about 2.3 million barrels of oil each day. today that number is 3.2 million, and iraq is now the number two oil producer in opec. surpassing iran.

this is a major iraq i success story held by the department of state and energy. we worked with the iraq to improve their investment plan and get more oil to the market. and there's no question that iraq's increased production has helped stablize oil markets at this pivotal moment and it provides a foundation for a stronger economy to benefit the iraqi people. i want to mention one additional diplomatic challenge we're focused on. how to -- especially at sea. if oil or gas is discovered in an area two countries share or where boundaries are inexact, how will they develop it? earlier this year after a long negotiation lead by the state department, the united states

and mexico reached a ground breaking agreement on oil and gas resources in the gulf of mexico. and we will be sending it to congress for action soon. the agreement clearly lays out how the united states and america will manage the that transcend our maritime boundary. in addition to the these examples of energy diplomacy, we're focused on the second area of engagement, energy transformation. helping to promote new energy solutions including renewables and energy efficiency to meet rising demand. diversify the global energy supply and address climate change. the transformation to cleaner energy is central to reducing the world's carbon emissions. and it is the core of a strong 21st century global economy. but we know very well that

energy transformation cannot be accomplished by governments alone. in the next twenty five years, the world is going to need up to $15 trillion in investment to generate and transmit electricity. governments can and will provide some of it, but most will come from the private sector. that's not only a huge challenge, but a huge opportunity. and i want to make sure that american companies and american workers are competing for those kinds of projects. after all american companies are leaders across the field of energy. leaders in renewables, high-tech, smart grid energy infrastructure, bioenergy, energy efficiency, and in coming decade, american companies should have the chance to do much more business worldwide. and by doing so, they will help

to create mesh jobs. governments can do several things to promote energy transmore make like educate our citizens about the value of energy efficiency and clean technology. but perhaps the most important thing we can do is enact policies that create an enabling environment that attracts investment and paves the way for large scale infrastructure. in many parts of central america and africa, and in india and pakistan, u.s. aid parts training -- and the ma less than yum challenge corporation is negotiating new compacts with several countries that would help them undertake wholesale systemic energy reforms. and with the right business climate agencies like the export-import bank and the overseas private investment corporation can help sale the --

seal the deals that allow u.s. exports to flow. for example, let me tell you what we're doing with our neighbors in latin america. earlier this year, the summit of the americas colombia launched a new initiative, it is leading with the united states called connecting the americas 2022. it aims to achieve universal access to electricity by the year 2022, through elect call interconnection in the hemisphere. linking elect call grids throughout the hemisphere through canada all the way down through the southern tip of chile as well as extending it to the caribbean. the inter-american develop world, the world bank, all the countries in the organization of america states have hoin joined this project. it stems from a broader effort called the energy and climate partnership of the americas which i launched in 2010 which

has sparked a wave of innovative partnership across the hemisphere. interconnection will help us get the most of our region's resources. seems simple but if one country has excess power, it can sell to a neighbor. the climate variable across our region means if one country has a strong rainy season it can exsupport hydropower to a neighbor in the middle of the drought. plus by expanding the size of power markets we can create economies of scale, attract more private investment, lower capital costs and ultimately lower the cost for the consumer. there's another goal here as well; 31 million people across the americas lack assess to reliable and affordable electricity. that clearly hold them back from making progress in so many

areas. so one aim of connect 2022 is to make sure that those 31 million people now do have power. with this single project, we will promote energy efficiency and renewable energy, fight poverty, create opportunity for energy businesses including u.s. businesses, and forge stronger ties of partnership with our neighbors. it really is a win-win-win in our opinion. there's another aspect of energy transformation that i think is important to mention. to achieve the levels of private sector involvement that we need. it takes a level playing field. so all companies can compete, but you know very well in some part of the world the playing field is hardly level. some countries dictate how much national content must be used in energy production they give sub i dids to their nation's

companies to give them an edge. it can be very challenging for american businesses to breakthrough. so every day in many parts of the world, our diplomats are out there fighting on behalf of american businesses and workers, taking aim at economic barriers and unfair practices. this september we achieved a major breakthrough. when the members nations of the asia-pacific economic cooperation community agreed to cut tariffs on 54 key environmental goods, clearing the way for more trade and clean energy technology. at at the same time that we're pursuing energy transformation we have to take on the issue of energy poverty. that's the third area of engagement i will mention. because for those 1.3 billion people worldwide who do not have access to a reliable, sustainable supply of energy, it is a daily challenge and

struggle. it also runs counter to energy transformation. these people are burning firewood, coal, dung, charcoal, whatever they can get their chance on. they're using diesel generators and no electricity is more expensive than that. and besides, these are dirty forms of energy. bad for peoples' health, bad for the environment. but it doesn't have to be that way we with have the technology and know how that can help people leap frog to energy that is not only reliable and affordable but clean and efficient. so energy transformation and ending energy poverty really do go hand and hand. you know, u.n. has launched an initiative called sustainable energy for all, which aims to do three things. achieve universal access to

modern energy by the year 2030, double both the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency and the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. this year companies and traditional development agencies together have committed more than $50 billion in financing for sustainable energy. if, and it's a big if, governments create the right commercial environment, and so more than 60 countries in africa, asia, and latin america have begun action plans to bring energy investors to the markets. these investments will lower the high prices many poor people pay today as well as increasing access to sustainable energy and opening new markets for american businesses. united states has another initiative to tackles pernicious aspect of energy poverty. cook stoves, nearly 3 billion

people, that's almost half the world's population, don't have access to modern cooking technology. they just have fires often inside their homes. which cause toxic air pollution killing nearly 2 million people, mostly women and children, every year. think about that. millions dying because of something as simple as ordinary as vital to their survive as a stove. that's a problem we are calling on the world to help us solve. three years ago, i launched the global alliance for clean cook stoves which is working with foundations, private companies, and other governments to get clean and affordable stoves in to 100 million homes worldwide by the end of this decade. and finally, we're focused on a key factor in both energy poverty and political

instability, poor governance. history tells a frustrating tale. countries that are rich with energy resources often have less democracy, more economic instability, more frequent civil wars. they are far more likely to be ruled by dictators, and oil can embolden "the dictators" to start conflicts with other countries. it's often called the resource curse. the resources aren't the problem. , it's greed. the resources can be used to transform a country's future for the better but only if they use the right way for the right purposes. so we need to work to undo the resource curse, especially now as demand for energy guarantees that more developing countries will become oil exporters. some countries that recently discovered oil reserves are

liberia, mozambique, not long ago they were embroiled in deadly conflicts. their political situations are still fragile. so they need support to ensure that there energy resources don't end up causing more suffering and trouble than good. the united states is working with eight new oil and gas produces countrying to help put in to place the building politic -- blocks of good governments including political institution, transparent finance, and effective laws and regulation. uganda, for example, we're helping the government adopt strong environmental protection laws and regulation because oil and gas development is happening in e -- we're increasing our support for the extractive industries transparency initiative, an international program that promotes transparency and accountable in

the oil, gas, and mining industries. and a year ago, president obama announced that the united states would join this organization as a signal of our commitment to the issue, and we are only the second developed country to do so. and through the cardin amendment, the united states is the first country in the world to require that our extractive industries companies disclose any payments they make to any government worldwide. an important step in the fight against corruption. so the message we're sending with all of these efforts from working to resolve energy-related disputes, to cooperating more with our neighbors on expanding electricity is this; the united states is convinced that energy and all it's complexity will continue to be one of the defining issues of the 21st century. and we are reshaping our foreign policy to reflect that.

this is a moment of profound change. countries that once weren't major consumers are, countries that used to depend on others for their energy are now producers. how will this shape world events? who will benefit and who will not? how will it affect the climate? people's economic conditions, the strength of young democracies? all of this is still unknown. the answers to these questions are being written right now. we dispend to play a major role in writing them. we have no choice. we have to be involved everywhere in the world. the future security and prosperity of our nations and the rest of the world hangs in the balance. and all of us, especially all of you here today, have a stake in the outcome.

so whatever you're studying here at georgetown, i hope you'll follow this issue and maybe even consider becoming engaged. the challenges i briefly outlined will only grow more urgent in the years ahead. and we need all of the smart people we can possibly muster working to solve them. this will take our nation's best minds, our most talented public servants, our most innovative entrepreneurs and millions of dedicated citizens. but i believe that we're up to the challenge. that we can working together secure a better future when it comes to energy supply and energy sustainability. and a future that by meeting those two objectives provides greater dignity and opportunity for all and protects the planet we all share at the same time. thank you very much.

[applause] [applause] [applause] the secretary is able to take a couple of questions, and so i would like to invite our students to ask those questions, and for those who have a question you'd like to ask so you might line up at the microphone in the center aisle. and when you ask your question, -- [inaudible conversations] i said a couple. it's only going to be a few. i'd like you to introduce yourself. >> thank you. good afternoon my name is [inaudible] i'm a first year here at georgetown.

-- with the understanding toward initiatives toward american energy and dependence there's no denying that oil is still a very critical part of energy in foreign policy of the united states. now with increasing interaction between russia and iraq, incoming oil contracts and weapons deals and seeming alliance there, should the united states be concerned of losing iraq to other parts of the world specifically including russia as an energy source? >> there's an excellent question, i think the answer is no. because i think that iraq's oil will enter the global marketplace. now when any nation's oil enters that marketplace, there are deals made where it will go, what the conditions of contract will be. russia is a very significant producer of oil and gas itself. so i think that the russian companies that will be exploring

for oil under new contracts just like american companies and french companies and italian and chinese and all who are competing for what is, as i said, the second largest oil production market in the world today will be operating within the economic framework that the global marketplace sets. so i think that, you know, the iraqis have come a far distance in trying to increase their production, but they have a lot of work still to do to try to improve and modernize their infrastructure and to create a hydrocarbon law that will determine the distribution of the money brought to the country because of the sale of oil. and it's -- as you may know, been a particular bone of con contention between bag baghdad

and the government and the kurdish government of the kurdish area in the north. all of this is still quite unsettled. but i don't think that there's any one element or any one country that is going to dictate the outcome. i think this is up to the iraqis and we've been urging they make decisions that are in the best interest of all the iraqi people. they have to get electricity to all iraqis that is reliable and affordable. they have a lot of work ahead of them but i think that there is a good basis now with the kind of oil reserves they have and the production levels they reached to deal with their own internal domestic needs first and foremost. >> good afternoon, madam secretary my name is an ma nah i'm a neshman here at the school of foreign service. i was wondering in light of environmental and security

concerns, what role you believe nuclear power should play in the future of global energy. >> great question too. i think that nuclear power will remain a component to the energy supply globally, currently the united states last time i looked, gets about 20 rnt of our -- 20% of the nuclear energy from plants and a lot of them are aging and are lot of them are going have to go up for reliancing. around the world, this there is some parts of the world a rejection in nuclear power. we're seeing in germ that and japan, for example, other parts of the world, even the u.k. and elsewhere, there is a new effort to increase the amount of energy obtained from nuclear power. and i think you know well that there are great trade-offs, i mean, you could put the line down the middle of the page and make the comparisons. there is a, you know, an

argument that it is a more -- it's a better form of energy for the world because it doesn't have greenhouse gas emissions. it's also have a very expensive form of numbering to produce -- energy to produce. i think you'll see over time a sorting out of the benefits and the cost, the danger, and the, you know, possible fixes for those dangers. being worked out around the world. i guess i would say three things. one, we know know that there has to be higher levels of safety for nuclear reactor plants. and we, therefore, need to hold ourselves and the rest of the world to a high standard if countries are going to be using nuclear power. secondly, i think it's very important that we do more

research ourselves in the united states but also with like-minded countries around the world to ensure that the cost of building plants will actually be recovered in a realistic time frame. remember, in our own country, and elsewhere, governments have to heavily subsidized the construction and operation of nuclear plants. because it is incredibly expensive. so what are the costs and benefits on a financial level and how does one deal with that? and finally i think it's important that we don't assume that there's any single answer for our energy needs. we have to invest more in all forms of energy. and that's why i think as you look at the trade-off with nuclear energy, and you think

about how much money it takes to build a plant and to ensure its safety would a compliable amount of money be better spent over the long run in a different form of energy. a renewable form of energy. i'm not stating any conclusions. i'm saying it has to be a very thoughtful discussion in our country and elsewhere. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, hillary clinton. it is a true honor to see you here only two months in to my academic journey here. it's truly amazing. i came over from israel, i studied -- [inaudible] and my question regarding my region and the field we just doesed -- discussing here. i was wondering what your administration was trying to solve the crisis of natural gas between israel and egypt. and the joinlt projects of energy resources in the middle east between israel and jordan. does that come to play with

something you said. >> another excellent question. three home run questions from three freshmen. [laughter] the united states is very 0 supportive of efforts in the middle east to try to work out some of the challenges to the production and exporting of energy. and i think you know from having been in israel, israel has made some significant finds of natural gas off the coastline, and there's also the potential for such new energy sources off of cypress, off of lebanon, and we have been urging diplomatically that everybody work out their boundaries, that gets me back to one of the points i was making because there's often overlapping

claimant -- -- claims and unless they're resolved stand in the way of the commercial exemployeation of whatever the reserves night be. it's in everyone's interest to try to make sure. everybody know where the boundaries are and people are able to let contracts that will be legally recognized in order to see what potential is available. similarly with respect to the pipeline, as you know, the pipeline from egypt has sabotaged numerous times in the last 18 months. the government of egypt has been very concerned about trying to cope it flowing and going. but i think israel and jordan has faced the reality that they have to look for other sources because they can't rely on a pipeline that may not be reliable. because it goes through some, you know, very dangerous terrain and with not much chance it's

going to be monitored. so i think both, you know, jordan and israel along with egypt which is looking for additional sources to meet their own domestic demand. everybody in the region is in the same frame of mind. they need more reliable energy sources. some of which they may be able to produce independly, domestically. but some of which they're going to have to work out agreements with neighbors. that's difficult in the region. the united states has certainly deployed a lot of diplomatic assets in order to try to encourage that. and, you know, egypt doesn't have a lot of energy. it has two neighbors, libya and sudan that do. jordon doesn't have a lot of energy but it has neighbors who do. same with lebanon and turkey, they need more access. so as difficult as the problems

now appear, i think there's one area where we can make some diplomatic headway, that's trying to get every country to act in their own self-interest. that is make decisions about boundaries. work out commercial arms lengths transactions no matter what else is going on in the neighborhood, you know, do what you need to do to have a reliable source of affordable energy. that's been our position. that's what we've been urging the governments in the region to do. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you all. [applause] thank you -- [inaudible] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] i have to be honest with you, i love these debates. these things are great.

and -- [cheering and applause] i think it's interesting that the president still doesn't have an agenda for the second term. adopt you think that it's time for him to finally put together a vision behalf he'd do in the next four years if e were elected. he's got to come up it over the weekend. there's only one debate left on monday. >> let's recap what we learn. the tax plan doesn't add up. the jobs plan doesn't create jobs. his deficit reduction plan adds to the deficit. so iowa, you know, everybody here heard gnat new deal you've heard of the fair deal, you've heard the square deal, mitt romney's trying to sell you a sketchy deal. [cheering and applause] we're not buying it! choses watch and engage president obama and romney meet in the final debate moderated by bob from lynn university in florida.

our debate previews start at 7:00 p.m. eastern followed by the debate at 9:00 and your reaction at 10:30 all live on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span.org. a focus on the presidential debates this month c-span is asking middle and high school students to send a message to the president as a part of the student cam video documentary. they will answer the questions what is the most important issue the president should consider in 2013. for a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000 and there's $50,000 in total prices available. student cam video competition is open to students grade sixth through twelfth. for complete details and rules go online to studentcam.org. see the final debate monday night on c-span, c-span radio, and onlined at c-span.org. watch and engage. in a few moments the former head

of israel's agency talks about iran's nuclear program. a palestinian historian and scholar. after that, a debate between the candidates for arizona's ninth congressional district. then we'll reair secretary of state hillary clinton on energy and foreign policy. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow here on c-span2. the wilson hosts a forum on protecting women and girls in afghanistan. at k59 a.m. eastern. at 2:00 p.m. the national academy of sciences has a discussion on the process of election polling and forecasting . >> it starts as an economic argument. men are having a harder time adapting to the economy and women are adapting more easily. i can't tell you why. there's different periods in history where men have adapted easily. it's education and credential. the economy is fast changing.

women seem to be getting the skills and credential at the faster rate than men are. they seem to be more nimble. that kind of filters down to the society. i talk about how that changes marriage and our notion of fatherhood and what men can and can't do in families. and, you know, how young people have sex and make decisions and so you really start to see it having an influence on culture. >> tucker karlson joins hannah rosen to discuss the end of men. saturday night at 10:00 eastern. this weekend on c-span2'sbook tv. the former head of israel's intelligence agency says a nuclear iran does not pose a throat israel. and normally iran will only hurt it itself if it goes nuclear. he served in said for more than 30 years. the comments at the wilson center in washington are little

less than an hour and a half. >> [inaudible] the directer of welcome to the meeting. middle east -- [inaudible] we launched this series in 2004. it is one of the most popular, as you see, we have an overflow with ninety people upstairs. it's one of the most popular we host at the middle east program, and it has brought to the wilson center prominent policy makers, thinkers, and leaders. and we had an attendance of over 2500 people since its inauguration.

jane hair month, the. presidentn center will introduce today's speaker. the former directer of the [inaudible] former head of the israel national security. and the center's vice president for new initiatives with moderate this session. jane harmon resigned from congress on february 28, 2011 to join the woodrow wilson as it first directer president and ceo. and you can imagine how -- you

will be presenting the -- center of california's during nine terms in congress and they served on all the major security committee six years on the on services. eight years on the -- [inaudible] and four on homeland security on the congresswoman harmon has made covered almost the whole world including ten days ago she returned from kosovo. i will introduce -- [inaudible conversations] >> all right. thank you. and she is an example or probably the proudest example of the role women play at the wilson center. it's one of the most important projects and the skiff and his wife who are right there.

makes much of our work possible and it's not just the gift of the dollars, it's the dlift of their time and energy and insight. i'm thrilled today very briefly to introduce a friend of mine. as you heard, i spent many long years in congress in fact i call myself an escapee from the united states congress. i'm in a place that is bipartisan and serious and focused it has civil dialogue and has very little resemble to my last line of work. but at any rate, while there and while the ranking member of the house intelligence committee, i met numerous times with the -- when he was the directer. it was a difficult time for israel and us, and he always provided and still provides wise counsel. one of the things that people may not know about him is that

he was the principal set negotiate of the israel-jordon peace treaty. it is easy to forget that role. it is important understand how crucial that piece treaty -- peace treaty is now as the region is involve tail. there's good news today, i'm told the egyptian ambassador to israel today to announce that egypt will abide by the peace treaty with -- will abide by the peace treaty with israel. we have relied on the peace tree treaty. so have we for many years. and he deserves enormous credit for that. as she said, we watch development in the middle east very closely here. the president of yemen came a few weeks ago to speak about a way forward for his country, which is trying hard to become a strong ally in the fight against

terrorism and has huge economic challenges. we just held the second of three meetings on how women foreverring faring in the arab awakening. tom pickerring and other senior national security officials military officers and experts with decades of middle east experience presented a report that they have written. a balance nonpartisan fact-based report on the benefits and costs of military action against iran. a topic that i know we all are assessing and i'm sure that the -- has views on. the report estimates that an israel air strike could delay iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon by up to two years. it would not replicate the earlier -- and syria. but at any rate, it's a topic on everyone's mind.

.. i will just say that he is an enormously valued colleague at the wilson center. his voice on the middle east and many other topics is heard around the world. efraim studies met multiple times on this visit with erin. as it once is enough, but apparently not. and aaron really does dazzle us

with his insights into the middle east just a couple days ago in another forum that we held. so haleh is coming back a thing to defend my attack on aaron. [inaudible] >> to complement -- okay, so are you coming back? but efraim, welcome again. it offers us to have you here. i'm very much looking forward to your remarks today. >> thank you very much, jane. i would provide various cameras in the room that she could put i'm new to yourself, but areas, whatever you have because it interferes with the live webcast that is picked up around the world. we have a very wide audience watching us. as i said earlier, and as jane

mentioned, aaron miller is going to be moderating the session and he has been wonderful for two decades as the advisor to the republican and democratic secretaries of u.s. policy in the middle east and the peace process. he served as lead coordinator for administrating negotiations commit senior member of the state department and the bureau of intelligence and he is the author of five books on them, the most recent one, the much promised land, america's search for arab-israeli peace, but he is a forthcoming book on which it's very exciting. can america have another great

president? welcome to the wilson center. >> jane, thank you very much. it's a pleasure to see you and an honor to be here. but i welcome all of you again to the woodrow wilson international center for college. zero my phd president. that piece of presidential esoteric is only important because i invoke the very woodrow wilson who believes in breaking the barriers between the academy and government. we need will send more than anything else now. jane i think is committed to ensuring that that spirit stays alive and well. affective thought before effective action. deliberate and affective thought for effective action. and we need wilson and deliberate thinker is now more than any time that i can remember. never have a sine. more complex, more potentially dangerous and more difficulties

than perhaps some opportunities during the course of the last 40 years. and if it's difficult for the united states come in certainly difficult for the israelis. a wise israeli friend was said to me that the israeli dilemma was embodied by the following notion that during the day the israelis fight the arabs and when, and is really speaking now, that during the night, and israelis fight the nazis and loose. how authoritative in the conundrum that israel faces that is very effective, very big reach is argued. but what is not arguable is that you have a set of security challenges. israel is not a victim. it should be seen as a victim, but there's also the danger of trivializing the security challenges that it faces. no one that i know is better

equipped, prepared, both by virtue of experience and temperament to ensuring three to guide us through this very important time. i'll just conclude he has three things. i wish i had more of them. one is clarity. we need to rise above detailing can measure perspex days. the second is to actually assert what it is you believe. and finally, integrity, to defend those with consistency in principle and to alter them when in fact reality demands that. so going to turn it over to you. we'll speak for about five minutes. i am mask a questionable code to yours. i can only do one things. please tell us your name and then ask a question.

>> thank you very much. i would like to thanks jane harman for her warm words. i would hope that many of the things she said artists true as she thinks they are. i will be there to further judgment. i also think erin who i've known quite a long time and with whom we worked very, very closely on some of the key issues, which have bedeviled the region for a long time and i was very honored when he approached me and asked me if it can to to speak here today and i thank you for the opportunity and i want to thank everybody else who was involved in making this event possible. i would like not to speak in a very ordered way, and a very

regimental way. i would like to offer a few thoughts in the next imminent and some of the major aspects of the situation in that troubled region where israel is destined to be the next 2000 years at least. first of all, i'm we hadn't event a couple days ago, which i think was not recorded here without much attention. a missile was shot from the gaza strip to one of our cities in the south of israel and it had a children's kindergarten, but thankfully it was that night and there were no children there. i mention this because i dismiss so then sent in the day and hunt this missile hit a kindergarten for children and, the number of fatalities have probably been

very high and this would've led in my opinion to an immediate change in the situation, not only to israel and the gaza strip, but also the entire region. it would've been a changer, not a money changer, a regional changer. i'm saying this because where there's been in the middle east where are they can have enormous effects on a whole range of issues. and it is often in the hands of individuals to bring this about. this is the situation we are in. i will say, by the way, in this respect but the fact that israel now has one means at its disposal, a system developed over the years in which we are

able at times to detect the missiles before they reach the destination and to vote them up. this has also been a money changer in the middle east. we did not have these means if we had not developed a spirit over the last two years to beat the mercy of this kind of attack and we would have to resort to other means. we would have ultimately to move into the gaza strip. edwards not for the support of the united states of america in developing and financing key elements of this program, is a very critical time. again, we would not have been in a position to conduct our daily lives the way they are being conducted today. i'm saying this because one of the aspects, one of the features of the middle east is that these individual events, which cannot be foreseen and have an enormous

effect on the course of history in the middle east. similarly, i would like to mention an event which took place slightly over a year ago when the israel embassy in cairo was attacked by a mob in the last stages of that event, five israeli guards were behind an iron metal door, which is the only obstacle between them and the mob and after several hours of an event which had been unfolding, israel did not have capability or capacity at that moment in time to prevail in anybody in each of two take action to avert what it would've been a disaster, which i mention in a moment. at that moment current prime minister of israel, netanyahu in the situation in jerusalem and you have been personally handing the christ says vice prime

minister turned to the president of the united states and asked for american intervention to prevail upon the egyptian forces to take action. and the president of the united states is faced with the situation in which we had to make a good decision, whether he would indeed try to take action to put the diminishing prestige that the united states had at the time in egypt, to put it to test whether to bring about a change, avert the disaster. with very little time to take a decision. i don't think it was easy decision because had it failed, model new would it have been the result that i will mention in a moment, but also would've had a very serious effect, in my opinion, on the overall policies and capabilities of the united

states and middle east if it failed in such a disaster. and the president took the decision and instructed those who have to deal with it to make an approach to egyptian authorities in the five men were saved through an operation of the egyptian special forces and the sprinted out of the embassy. how this not happened, instead of five persons arriving back in israel, we would have had five body bags arriving in israel. and in my opinion, this would've been a critical change in the situation in the middle east. one enormous consequence that we should take on the spot and weigh things very quickly and determined very quickly how it acts in a given set of

conditions. whereas in the past, we've had relative stability in the middle east. we had rulers, traditional rulers, we have monarchies, would have principalities, we had dictators of one kind or another. but there was an element of stability. today, there is no such element of stability and mr. kay says, the powers that be in countries in the middle east are to a large extent still fighting for their credibility and fighting for their capability to govern their country's and the result of this is that the actual sovereignty of countries in the middle east is not preserved and

large tracts of the countries for which these governments supposedly are in power. so for example in egypt, when we speak of cyanide, is a part of egypt? gas, does the government of egypt have control over what is happening? no. i don't have to say any more about syria. it's quite obvious, evident government in syria does not have the capability of to exercise sovereignty throughout syria. just a week ago a number of villages very close to the israeli syrian border where taken over by the free syrian army and this presents a problem to us. it also presents a problem to the syrian authorities in damascus. and therefore, it is more obvious now than ever before the central government les thomas

have controlled the destinies of their territory. by mention, for instance, lebanon, when the sake of the hezbollah that actually controls that part and the government in beirut has limited, if any authority and capability to events on the south. take iraq, which is immersed in a situation where it has been after the events of 2003, saddam hussein had drowned. to say the government has control of the country would be a very large exaggeration. the kurdish area in the north is more or less a semi-autonomous area, quite prosperous by doing quite controlled. if the control? i think it would be the forces

in baghdad control what is happening in other parts of the country. even in recent weeks, saudi arabia, where there have been riots and uprisings in the least, where there is a large shiite geordie. there've been clashes clashes between the forces, security forces of the kingdom of saudi arabia and the shiites there. that is a very sensitive area. but to recall where there is a lot of the oil of the kingdom, which is concentrated there. and it's also very sensitive because the shiites of course in terms of religion defer to tehran and not to mac guy. so even in a country like saudi arabia, which has relative stability better pricing problems.

so we have a situation which we have to deal with, which is a very difficult situation both in place and also other governments that are determined what to do. and of course we have the palestinian authority or doesn't control all the territory which supposedly ascenders governance. the gaza strip is under the control of hamas today and even in the west bank, hamas still has a very, very serious person despite numerous efforts, which have been carried out to subdue them. so as palestinians are concerned, they are straight down the middle both politically and geographically in here again the authority of ramallah does not control what is happening in gaza strip. these are situations, which we have to take into account when they look at the overall

picture, which presents to us in the middle east. the third point i'd like to make is this in this region we have a clearer upsurge of religion as a major power and a major factor in the governance of countries. secularism in the middle east. for a very long time, secularism was succeeding. add that to recall for instance the famous party, the baath party, which was a secularist party, which governs serious and govern iraq for quite some time and to a large extent, hosni

mubarak and was not a government, which was religiously motivated and the way it's carried out its business in daily affairs. it's a major effect in the middle east. the art of the divide between the shiite and the sunnis this is something which is a major political phenomenon, which we have to deal with in the middle east, which the middle east has to deal with as it goes along. this is not something we had some time ago. a secularist country and as you well know to dominate the scene, but certainly had a major effect on the scene after the success

in turkey. so, religion is something which has to be contended with, which has to be dealt with. and i would suggest to you, this morning that i don't think we have found the ways and means of dealing with religion as a political faction in determining international relations. we have also other aspects of the situation, which would have to be very clear about. first of all, i would like to mention the fact that russia is returning to be a serious actor in the middle east. for over a decade and more, after the dissolution of the soviet union, russia did not play a major role.

but this is beginning to change. it began to change after the events in libya, where russia suffered a second setback from his point of view, following the setback it had in iraq after the fall of saddam hussein and the fall of russian influence of these two events. we are now witnessing the beginning of a russian contacts in the middle east. and the way that russia is battling alongside the regime in damascus to maintain the situation in damascus and maintain us not in power. and last week i'd like to recall are mentioned to you that russia assigned a very large arms deal with iraq for over $4 billion if

i'm not mistaken. it is ironic to say that that after the united states had toppled saddam hussein within a few years now, the russians are beginning to come back to the middle east or iraq of all places. russia as the middle east, alongside the united states is beginning to show it in one way or another on this already catapults the middle east back into the realm of international politics into which was once the big divide us so many years between the block in the western bloc between the united states and soviet union. the end of the cold war, although that had that in desert storm, the first iraqi war,

russia, the soviet union actually fought alongside the united states. didn't fight, but as part of the coalition, which confronted saddam hussein if you remember that particular event in history, it very interesting event with many points of view. after that, there was a change in russia receded into the background for years and now they're coming back. so once again come the middle east is beginning slowly to become again a scene of international conflicts. and this is something, which cannot be ignored and cannot be denied. and then we have a ram. i'd do if i don't mention iran, people seem derelict in my duty. so i mention iran. and we have iran, which is now

undergoing a very difficult period in its history. it has resumed his program for obtaining military nuclear capability. it has confronted the world is large. it has confronted both the west end is cannot come back to that in a moment. and the fact of the matter is that iran is setting up the world as a whole and the science, notwithstanding the fact that it's now undergoing the pain of sanctions, which are effective but does not only affect the economy at large, but also the business sector and the financial set up in iran, the rapid evaluation, which is then

the losing value in the tens and tens of percentages and the official rate is less than half of what the practical greatest today. if the shackled to the dollars that may rise to be 10 shekels to the dollar, it would be the run of the banks and no israeli would be even one shackled in the bank. and i don't know what will happen if there be such a massive evaluation of the american dollar because i cannot imagine that there ever will be and evaluation of american dollar because i don't know what it would evaluate. but in any event, the situation in iran is rapidly developing and there are serious problems in iraq on a very very serious problems. just last week, the spiritual leader and practical leader of iran spoke three times in one

week. he doesn't often speak to such succession. and of course, he more or less discounted the whole account of the fact that sanctions on the middle east. on iran, it is obvious that he speak in like that because the population at large in iran is now feeding the brunt of it the sanction fire. and the problem is what to do about iran, how to do with the ram. and i mention again that set a couple minutes ago, but as far as iran is concerned, there is more or less a united, international front against allowing iran the pain of turning a nuclear capability. we know flippantly the five plus one are going to nato must

remind ourselves the members of the security council, which include russia and china and the one is germany. so it's not just that the united states doesn't want iran to achieve a nuclear media capability, it's also russia that doesn't want them to achieve such a capability in a sauce of china that doesn't want to achieve the capability. how to engineer this operation, this tool to get the orangutans to change their policy on mass i think is a major challenge, a major challenge for international diplomacy, a major challenge for the diplomacy of the united states. i would like to mention two aspects of this, two facts.

the distance between tehran and moscow is more or less the distance between tehran and jerusalem. and i don't think the russians would like to be under the threat -- potential threat of an iranian nuclear capability. so there is room here of course for a very, very intensive and very, very professional effort to get the iranians off the hook and thereby get us all off the hook. how to do this is a major test for international diplomacy. how to bring about is a major test with the capability of minds and brains here in washington and elsewhere around the world. i think that it is doable because in the end, the iranians have shown a several occasions in the past when they've realized it's not in the

national interest to continue the level of confrontation with which they have developed over the years against the entire world beard have found ways of backing down. i would like to mention two other aspects in conclusion in the opening remarks. the relations between the middle east and the entire world have gone through a lot of problems in the last couple of centuries. the peoples of the middle east have had various types of relationships with the powers. besides their basic interest, economic and geopolitical, there've been three other entries which have been very important for people of the middle east. one has been to try and to preserve their way of life.

and their way of life is not the western democratic system. it was not having parliament elected the way they are listed here. i cannot imagine a presidential campaign and egypt which is happening here. but maybe some of you will not think this is even desirable, but that's a different question. the fact that i cannot imagine such a presidential campaign in riyadh or the. it's a question of basic culture and we have not found the ways and means of how to engage in an intercultural dialogue. i would like to recall a few years ago there were efforts by the supreme democracy to the middle east by a republican

demonstration, by the way of the previous president. and it didn't work because it does not work in that way. and therefore can't stand the question of how to bring democracy to the middle east. it's how to be a system, which is a different system, for better or for worse. number two, there is a basic or bloom in the middle east and the arab nations in not only the arab nations, but the ukrainian nations. they feel very deeply that they do not enjoy. i don't know how to describe and i cannot give you a recipe of what are dignity, dignity disfigured very hard on the list

of elements which are troubling countries in the middle east. a few months ago i happened to be in a meeting with various people, including ukrainian, people from tehran, not of the opposition. this 15 minutes saying how wonderful those talks were. they dignity with respect to and how was that respect did because the talks were conducted they are all equal.

you might think this is childish. you might think this is not something which is of importance. it is. in dealing with a country like iran, we have to do with their eccentricities, their concern and otherwise and sometimes it's not all that difficult to deal with it if you know how to do it. it's not too so you have to give up on substance or that you can behave in the way, which creates atmospheres. and that is the very thing you want to. atmosphere. there is in the middle east at the moment of atmosphere of respondents seek. people don't believe that anything good can come of what is happening. nothing good can come of this

happening in syria. that's a good can happen of which is coming in egypt ultimately, there's no easy solution, there are no solutions whatsoever in reasonable distance from today. how do you feed the 80 million pounds in each of. nobody really knows how to do it you how to feed $80 million in tehran, nobody knows how to do it. and very often when he got a hot to do things, we prefer not to do with them and hope that they'll go away or something will happen to remove them. i will stop here because i didn't want this morning just to begin with the nitty-gritty of problematic, v., problems see. i thought it was essential to put things in perspective. one of the things we've lacked in recent years his perspective.

we've got with top and sides that come come along as the nitty-gritty came along. but we have to wait to -- we have to have the level of the way we look at things because you're going to have to live with this kind of situation for quite some time to come. and that is my last observation. i don't think were the business of finding quick solution for basic solutions to most of the problems in the middle east in the immediate future. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. i for one really appreciate it. i was take the advantage and ask the first question. do you believe that iran, with the nuclear capacity,

constitutes existential threat to the state of israel? >> first of all, i will say no. i don't think that there is an existential threat to israel. i don't think that the threat of israel -- i don't think the existence of israel is at stake. i don't think there is any power in the world, any capability in the world, which can bring about the demise of the state of israel. i say this because i firmly believe in that spirit not only in counties soldiers counting bombs, but i also recalled her israel was established and how it came into being. i was there. i was the envoy at the time. i read what was then palestine april 1940. i was there in the war of independence and i can say the

odds of israel mentioning untreated emerging is considered less than 50/50. the secretary of state of the nicest of america at the time, general george marshall had been a celebrated commander world war ii thought that the 600,000 jewish in palestine at the time had no chance. and yes, we paid a very, very bitter price during the war. there were days in which relies on his people on the battlefront. we lost 6008. 1% of the population, which is a very, very large number of people for 600,000 people. family emerged from not. and i don't think that the state of israel will cease to exist as i said at the outset. in the next 10,000 years we can come and discuss it again. so how can we survive a nuclear

capacity of iran? first of all, they should not come about of course. i don't accept the premise that if tomorrow morning the iranians announced they had their capacity, you begin the countdown to the end of israel because that the essence of the statements at various existential threat. and i said it very clear, practical terms, if there is an existential threat, the arenas have a nuclear capability, you begin the countdown and this will never be the case. never. so how do we protect israel and that eventuality? i will not go into the details, but i will say that israel has numerous capacities to do such a situation. military, strategic and otherwise. i don't think the arenas will be able to do what they want to do. we will take necessary steps to

see to it that they are not able to do it. the fallacy is the sense of an existential rut because it means to say that the ukrainians have in their capacity if they have a nuclear capability. in other words, we as israelis are we of the world, if you get the bomb, you'll have the capacity to destroy israel. you will be in breach of your theme to destroy israel. and i think it is wrong for two sides have on-site petting the other side. there could be a situation in which you can actually kill me. that's not the way to run a war and not the way to run a strategic program at all. you say to some of what i lack some specifics. i cannot go into specifics this morning. if i did that, i would be able

to go back to israel. but i can assure you that we've been in very dire straits in situations many, many times in our history and we will overcome. but i'd like us to be in consideration? no. i would much prefer this not to happen. but i would like to try and convince the iranians that from their view is getting a nuclear capacity is a threat to them and this necessitates two things. we must scrap this tragedy and lois talk to them. we have to dialogue with them. have a great lever and iowa, talking to people. i would never have been married had i not spoke to my future spouse and convince you to take me seriously. you have to talk to people, you have to speak their minds, speak

to their thoughts, speak to their feelings and soap are and not just hammer them on the head. should hammer them on the head as well. at the same time, with one hand use the hammer and on the other hand use it in the event that you can outstretched hand. adiabatic >> before i met, it's so fascinating. your three points about learning to liaise with the different system, understanding dignity and changing the atmosphere are at the virtually important. my question is how important is it in order to achieve these things to put a muslim face on whatever response we know how to i ran into syria to be part of a group led by either a regional organization for a country like

turkey that one would hope cultural and distinctive understanding. >> i don't think necessarily we have to have a muslim face. i think it is important to impress upon the other side digestives they need to survive in this world, economically and otherwise, they have to talk to us as well. they have to recognize us as well. i don't think we need to speak to them as if we are muslims to talk to them. now, on the contrary, maybe not. there have been muslims on their side of the divide who are part of the party, yes. and i think everything should be done to bring turkey on board. and i think this is also doable. we also have to preserve our

dignity, but use intelligence here and there how to deal with individuals. i mean, you have to deal with people in the business world, other worlds, the scientific worlds. to solve the question of dialogue, talking to people, i'm trying to bring them around. and i think it's doable. yes, it's doable. we signed with egypt come or send a peace treaty with jordan. we had an agreement with the palestinians and we did it for talking to them. but talk to them secretly and then we packed up and semi-secretly. and i think this is the way to do things. and i think ultimately, despite the tendency of people to say that in the muslim world you have asserted strands of

suicidal tendencies. now, basically they're not suicidal. the iranians are not suicidal although they sent their children into the battlefield during iraq in a rainy work on it or not suicidal. by the way, they didn't go to the battlefield. >> i have a question with over 60 people were watching you. he wants to know, how does the rising muslim brotherhood in egypt for security cooperation is your security generally. >> first of all, we have a peace treaty with egypt and the egyptian court hearing to the treaty in very strict terms. there are areas in which there is data contact between israelis and egyptians to do a security problem in the sinai and i think

president corsi has made a very clear that egypt will abide by its international obligations. i think we have to accept the fact that egypt has the right to decide on a home system of government and it has the right -- the citizens of egypt has the right to choose their government and that's what they did. and indeed, and he was elected with less than a few hours come in the prime minister of israel netanyahu sent a message of congratulations and asked him to work alongside the issues of common concern and i think this is the right thing to do. he didn't say because of the muslim brotherhood, i will not do this. it was the right thing to do anything key in this way took the initiative and i think he also set the tone for what might happen in the future. i think that more sunnis to be

encouraged along this way. there's two ways of encouraging. first of all, we have using inducements and also a method as saying what the penalty might be if it went the wrong way. that's the way relations are conducted. i've no reason to believe at the moment that morrissey and the muslim brotherhood is intent on entering into a confrontation with israel the moment. i think they should be interested in to have problems today in egypt, which are gigantic, social, economic and others. and i don't sense there is any great appetites on the part of the egyptian population to go to war with israel. i don't think this is true and i don't think you'll be sure for a long time to come. i think we should do things and take initiatives in order to

develop a relationship with egyptian. either way, i will say the muslim brotherhood is a movement, which is not restricted to research. the muslim brotherhood and the muslim brotherhood have been to be presently a ruling part of palestine, which is gaza. i said over the recent years and this is not a steep rate that i think we should find ways and means a diet lacking with the muslim brotherhood and concept. and it has not been a very popular view, but once we are dialogue with the muslim brotherhood's in cairo, i don't see why we are inhibited from talking to a sister organization in other parts of the world. >> yes, could you identify yourself, please click once sat.

to mic is coming. >> mohammed remaining because of the changes that took place in the middle east and no more or much less secular states now, this may beat israel is not happy, to have fiscal. now, the arab spring, we don't know which ones. this would not be independent because those leaders now, which are new, muslims are not -- they are accountable, much more than the leaders. the issues of the palestinians and the public opinions. and maybe the time is not in the benefit for israeli. is it not the time now to put

the peace plan -- the arab east plan on the table that is the right time to now do things. thank you. first of all, i have never thought that we should be happy on what is happening in the arab world. our capacity to address what is happening in the arab world is very limited to say the least and therefore, i think we should accept the facts as they are. and whether it's good or bad for us, it is immaterial as far as i'm. you have to do with the situation as it is and not on the one hand to be well the fact that in the past things are different than they are today. in the future they may be better than they are now. this is the way it is at the moment. i think that there has to be a mutual move and with us in the

countries surrounding us. the day in which there was a united arab front against israel have gone. and each country in the arab world has its own interests. this began with the israeli egyptian in 1978 and continued with the palestinian agreement we had. it continued with the peace with jordan. there have been constant rounds of negotiations between us and the syrians. there was a revelation that a year or two ago, the united states is brokering a kind of effort to bring about a new initiative to settle the problems and this is confirmed in washington. so we should be always on the other to try and get these things done.

i didn't just come in palestinian problem used to be a tenant. the problem is that whether israel policy is not good concerning palestinians, the palestinian world is split at the moment. it's split geographically and it's split politically. those who are rolling the west bank and others ruling gaza. it is not with israel's capacity to try and bring about unification between the two. and i don't agree should be involved in that. we have a problem as a result of this will have to do with the problem as it is. i don't think my view is that mahmoud abbas with all the respect we have for him, does not have the mandate to sign up for the entire palestinian people. at the to say that it exceeded since the elections palestinian

parliament and the last election to the palestinian department. either way, i would like to mention come the fact that hamas participated in the election in 2006 was against the wishes of israel and the palestinian authority. and the power to force the israel and the palestinians to allow hamas to participate in the elections this year in washington. it was the start of the united states of america that hamas should participate with notwithstanding the fact that hamas did not renounce violence in 2006, which is considered to be a condition, but going to be part of the political process. and this was done under the republican administration of george w. bush.

but the fact is there is no, and firstly at the moment, illegitimate representation of the palestinians, which can do with the situation. and this is something, which has to be corrected in my view and can be corrected. whether we should do it on the basis of the arab initiative, i am aware of the arab initiative. it has various aspects to it. i would like to draw your attention to the fact that the resolution of the middle east, which is promoted by the united states and then adapted by both israel and the palestinians in the year 2003 and subsequently was reaffirmed in 2004. and that road map, there is a preamble, which says, what are the basis for the resolution of the problems i'm one of the elements mentioned there is the air of peace initiative. and mentioned specifically is one of the elements as a basis

for reaching agreement. so yes, that is part of the elements, but not the only element, not the only basis for this. but he needs to be a genuine effort on both sides to reach a solution, solutions usually mean compromise and israel will have to compromise and the palestinians will have to compromise side-by-side here but i mention again, i don't think at the moment there is a technical possibility because the question will be who represents the palestinians and who can actually implement the agreement once an agreement is made. i don't see capability of implementation on the side of the palestinians at the moment. >> there's another question. you've got enormous six years in dealing with jordan and the monarchies and the jordanians so far have fared much better in the face of the arab spring in the so-called republics or

presidencies. are you concerned about the future of jordan? >> i think first of all anything personally to monarchial system of government is a very good system and the difficult times we had a system and jewish people and sometimes i wonder, looking at israeli politics that they wouldn't have a good idea to bring back a keener sense into roulette if we'd be in better shape maybe then we are at the moment. but that is of course an aside. last night and not promulgated at the moment. what i would like to say is this. i think jordan is going through a difficult time. i think the king is handling the situation very, very capably. add that to mention that traditionally the king of jordan has always come up with himself

and his late father, who i knew -- whom i had it longer lasting relationship over several years on the half of several israeli areas was always talking a position. jordan is now under extreme pressure from the north as well. the overflow of refugees into jordan has been a problem. after the desert storm there is a flow of refugees from the call state into jordan. then after the iraqi sector more, there is a big flow from iraq into jordan. now there's been a flow of syrian refugees to jordan. jordan is not such a big country with such a large influx of refugees. so that is also a complicating issue. and on top of all of that is you'll probably recall, several

occasions have been large groups of palestinians who have moved as a result of both the war of independence and the word 67. so jordan, having all of this on the shoulders, one has to complement the leadership over a long period of time is handing the situation so capably. and given the resilience of the regime at the moment, there is a good chance that the regime will overcome the current problems and certainly come israel values the relationship immensely. the longest border israel has is that jordan and many years gone by, this was a border, which was the source of constant terrorist activity, which was conducted across the border into israel. this is now the most peaceful we have today and we hope it stays

there. the most peaceful border, although we have one more line, which is also a line, which has been relatively peaceful and that is the future line between us and syria, which since 1974 to today is 38 years. 38 years of the line, which is where we have relative peace is a big achievement for both sides. >> yes. >> hi, julie were shot inherent human events. thanks for your time today sir. i'm wondering what you make of the fact that the same suspect a master's iranian plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador to the united states pled guilty in a u.s. court yesterday. what does this maybe so about, you know, the iranian government is willing to do.